Although often interpreted differently by individuals, legal rights, human rights and the jury system are essential features of the legal system. Nielsen believes that the main purpose of rights is to protect individuals, while Hajjar portrays the objective of the legal system as recognizing and respecting certain inherent human rights. Further, Dooley understands the jury system as essential for ensuring a democratic and fair trial procedure. As rights and the jury system are viewed according to these varying objectives, it seems there is a general assumption that the legal system is intended to protect individuals from the power of the government. However, individuals’ abstract idea of how the law works can be contrary to the actual workings of the legal system. Rights and the jury system create the expectation in people that they will be protected from the power of the government, and yet these expectations often remain unfulfilled, creating a disconnect between the idea of protection and the reality of the legal system. In her article “The Work of Rights and the Work Rights Do,” Laura Beth Nielsen asserts that “legal rights are important for protecting individual autonomy and resisting the arbitrary or tyrannical imposition of state power” (Nielsen 63). In the case of traditionally disadvantaged groups, rights have provided a sense of power as a direct result of their nature. Nielsen explains, “’Rights’ are said to apply equally to everyone, they are ‘neutral,’ and are backed by the legitimate authority of law and the state,” and that “Rights are often thought of as naturally inhering in persons” (66, 68). Because many minority groups view rights as inalienable, absolute, and supported by the government, they... ... middle of paper ... ...ermining the very ideal that rights seem to stand for. The inconsistency between expectations and individuals’ lived experiences seems to show that rights and the jury system are fundamental to our democratic society, but only when the government feels they should be so. Works Cited MLA Citation Dooley, Laura Gaston. “Our Juries, Our Selves: The Power, Perception and Politics of the Civil Jury.” Before the Law: An Introduction to the Legal Process. Ed. John J. Bonsignore., et. al. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. pp. 450-453. Hajjar, Lisa. “Human Rights.” Reader: 55-62. Margulies, Joseph. “A Prison Beyond the Law.” The Virginia Quarterly Review. Reader: 119-128. Nielsen, Laura Beth. “The Work of Rights and the Work Rights Do: A Critical Approach.” Reader: 45-79. Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S, 214 (1944). Reader: 91-102.
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
This chapter is mainly devoted to the jury selection process and how it is taken care
Feinberg, J. “ The Nature and Value of Rights.” Journal of Value Inquiry 4(1970): 243
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
A jury is defined as “a body of persons legally selected and sworn to inquire into any matter of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence” by Webster(2004). It differs from a bench trial, in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions. Nowadays the jury system is very popular in almost all of the common law legal systems, so that people of those countries can make sure that the case would not be judged only by one’s personal willing or prejudice.
The importance of a jury makes it necessary to understand its function, strengths and weaknesses in a criminal matter. Both the state and federal courts follow the same procedure in impaneling the jury. Most states do not accord minors the right to jury trial in court proceedings related to juvenile delinquency. The jury essentially hears the evidence presented against the defendant and potential defenses. It will then weigh the evidence and ultimately determine if the evidence satisfies the criminal offenses that the defendant has been charged, beyond any reasonable doubt. Numerous and varied rules often surround the jury. The jury mainly focuses on criminal cases because these cases put a person’s liberty at risk. Defendants do not have a right to jury trial if their jail term does not exceed six months. All jurors need to recognize the fact that jury service is a critical duty of citizenship. They may also decide questions that involve crimes for which a trial judge fine, place on probation, or confine defendant to prison. Nevertheless, a jury does not play any role in sentencing, but instead leaves it upon the trial judge to make this decision following all the submissions made by both sides. Overall, the court system must rely upon a jury for the protection of liberty, life, and the pursuit of
A jury is a panel of citizens, selected randomly from the electoral role, whose job it is to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented. The Jury Act 1977 (NSW) stipulates the purpose of juries and some of the legal aspects, such as verdicts and the right of the defence and prosecution to challenge jurors. The jury system is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society as members of the community ultimately decide whether the person is guilty or innocent. The creation of the Jury Amendment Act 2006 (NSW) enabled the criminal trial process to better represent the standards of society as it allowed majority verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2, which also allowed the courts to be more resource efficient. Majority verdicts still ensure that a just outcome is reached as they are only used if there is a hung jury and there has been considerable deliberation. However, the role of the media is often criticized in relation to ensuring that the jurors remain unbiased as highlighted in the media article “Independent Juries” (SMH, 2001), and the wide reporting of R v Gittany 2013 supports the arguments raised in the media article. Hence, the jury system is moderately effective in reflecting the moral and ethical standards of society, as it resource efficient and achieves just outcomes, but the influence of the media reduces the effectiveness.
"Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789." The Avalon Project. Yale Law School, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
Mention the pros and cons of our jury system and possible alternatives of it. Also, identify the group dynamics of the jury members
Both the pluralist account as well as the personhood account will yield highly indeterminate and, or, unreasonable norms without specification of the threshold as to when an interest or autonomy does generate a right upon others. Griffin introduces this threshold through the addition of the further ground of ‘practicalities’, that rights need enough content so to generate a socially manageable claim. A pluralist perspective introduces threshold criterion through understanding a right to be an imposition of duties upon others, in addition to evaluating the ‘impossibility’ and ‘burdensomeness’ of a the interest. Therefore, if we are assessing not when a right is generated, but rather what can serve as the grounding of human right we return to the question of why the interest of liberty and autonomy are any more pertinent to the human condition than any other
In this essay, I will explain how I experienced a courtroom visit and the important issues learnt from the visit. In the courtroom, the judge was presiding over the court, and because the matters were on criminal cases there were jurors. This jury received instructions from the judge about the law, as they were nonprofessional. A jury consists of twelve persons when it comes to serious felonies and six members when it is only a misdemeanor. The reason why the judge gave them the facts on the law was to help them deliberate after the case was over to establish whether the accused person was guilty or not.
Jury system qualifications and composition have changed over the years in the United States. In the beginning they were only used to provide local knowledge and information, while today they have become more complex. To creating different courts, such as, crown court, high courts, and county courts. To letting citizens of the United States participate and serve on a jury trial has changed dramatically since the fifteenth century. Since the days of the Pilgrims, jury service today remains one of the cornerstones of our system of
Humanity has long debated the concept of rights, as well as the role those rights play
Simmons, A. John (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 127.